Biology expert testifies. Professor: Intelligent design is creationism.

York Dispatch ^ | 9/27/05 | Christina Kauffman

[Crackingham]

Dover Area School District's federal trial began yesterday in Harrisburg with talk ranging from divine intervention and the Boston Red Sox to aliens and bacterial flagellum. After about 10 months of waiting, the court case against the district and its board opened in Middle District Judge John E. Jones III's courtroom with statements from lawyers and several hours of expert testimony from biologist and Brown University professor Kenneth Miller.

On one side of the aisle, several plaintiffs packed themselves in wooden benches behind a row of attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, Pepper Hamilton LLC and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. On the other side of the aisle, nine school board members, only three of whom were on the board when it voted 6-3 to include a statement on intelligent design in biology classes, piled in behind lawyers from the Thomas More Law Center. Assistant superintendent Michael Baksa and superintendent Richard Nilsen shared a bench with Michael Behe, a Lehigh University professor expected to take the stand in defense of intelligent design.

SNIP

Miller, whose resume is several pages long and includes a stint as a professor at Harvard University, was the first witness called for the parents. Miller co-wrote the Prentice Hall textbook "Biology" with professor Joe Levine. The book is used by 35 percent of the high school students in the United States, Miller said. His were some of the thousands of biology books in which school officials in Cobb County, Ga., ordered stickers to be placed, warning that evolution is only a theory, "not a fact." Miller also testified in a lawsuit filed by Cobb County parents, and a judge later ordered that the stickers be removed.

Yesterday, the scientist's testimony was at times dominated by scientific terminology, though he jokingly told ACLU attorney Witold Walczak he would do his best to explain things in the layman's terms he uses with his mother.

Miller said intelligent design supporters think an intelligent designer must have been involved in the creation of life because science can't yet prove how everything evolved. He said the intelligent design idea that birds were created with beaks, feathers and wings and fish were born with fins is a creationist argument.

Intelligent design supporters often cite "irreducible complexity" in their research, he said. "Irreducible complexity" means that a living thing can't be reduced by any part or it won't work at all. So those living things could not have evolved in the way Darwin suggested; they had to be created with all of their existing parts, Miller said.

Intelligent design proponents often cite the bacterial flagellum, a bacterium with a tail that propels it, Miller said. Behe and his colleagues claim bacterial flagellum had to be created with all of its parts because it couldn't function if any of them were taken away, Miller testified. But scientists have proved that the bacterial flagellum can be reduced to a smaller being, a little organism that operates in a manner similar to a syringe, Miller said.

One of the biggest problems with the scientific viability of intelligent design is there is no way to experiment with the presence of a supernatural being because science only deals with the natural world and theories that are testable, Miller said.

Some people might suspect divine intervention last year when the Boston Red Sox came back to win the World Series after losing three games in a row to the New York Yankees in the playoffs. It may have been, but that's not science, he said. And intelligent design proponents haven't named the "intelligent being" behind their supposition, Miller said. They have suggested, among other things, that it could be aliens, he said. He said there is no evidence to prove intelligent design, so its proponents just try to poke holes in the theory of evolution.

[jennyp]

From the DI's press release:

Miller also blatantly mischaracterized intelligent design theory as an argument for a “supernatural agent.” ...

Even the textbook under debate, “Of Pandas and People” (Pandas) makes it eminently clear that a scientific theory like intelligent design cannot identify the designer, and cannot state if the designer was supernatural or natural (see pages 7, and 127-127).

Ah, so now they're denying that the Designer is supernatural? Fascinating backtracking from their earlier pronouncememts:

For more than a century, science attempted to explain all human behaviour as the subrational product of unbending chemical, genetic, or environmental forces. The spiritual side of human nature was ignored, if not denied outright.

This rigid scientific materialism infected all other areas of human knowledge, laying the foundations for much of modern psychology, sociology, economics, and political science. Yet today new developments in biology, physics, and artificial intelligence are raising serious doubts about scientific materialism and re-opening the case for the supernatural.

And this:

Materialism is the modern day philosophy that holds that matter is all there is. It's the philosophy that says "If you can't touch it, smell it, taste it or explain it through the hard sciences, it doesn't exist." Men are merely complex machines and not spiritual beings.

And it's approved by most intellectuals around the world.

One other thing: we're out to topple it.

Next the press release gives us this gem:

Miller also claimed that “Pandas” offers no positive case for design, even though the textbook clearly states that “[i]f experience has shown that a certain class of phenomena results from intelligent causes and then we encounter something new but similar, we conclude its origin also to be from an intelligent cause” (page ix).

Notice the slick equivocation between "supernatural" and "intelligent". We're supposed to come away thinking that they mean the same things - that intelligence must necessarily be a supernatural phenomenon. Very slick.

[Gumlegs]

sr4402: Thus in discussing with my daughter whether she could marry an evolutionist, I said that even after marriage, he could justify leaving her at any time for a prettier or healthier woman; her holding on to him would be dependent on her functionality and desirability at any given time.

Thatherite: I now think that you are trolling for a response. I don't believe that a functional adult could be as sick-minded as you are pretending to be.

This is actually pretty funny. Both my wife and I believe in evolution. In the 28 years (and counting), of our marriage, we've both seen better-looking and/or healthier members of the opposite sex. We seem to find more and more of them every year. Yet, for some reason, we have no desire whatever to leave each other.

Much the same is true of many friends of ours who believe in evolution. Curiously, statistics appear to indicate that Christians, whether evangelical, born-again, or unmodified, all have higher divorce rates than atheists. I don't know what to make of this. I doubt that atheists manage to remain perpetually "prettier or healthier" or maintain greater "functionality and desirability" than church-goers, but you never know. It appears the study didn't go into that level of detail.

[MineralMan]

"Please show me where the changes caused by hurricane Katrina and the Rita caused all that wood to build a house or metal create a car.

Random natural acts are always destructive and the opposite of evolution.

Always!"

---

Oh, my. But you just watch, Bill. There are going to be lots and lots of nice new houses built because of the hurricanes. Lots and lots. Remember, evolution takes a long time to take effect. But oh, yes, Katrina and Rita are going to be the cause of a great number of new homes.

And, as with evolution, some of those new homes will be improvements on the earlier ones. Others will be less luxurious.

To be serious for a moment: I'll discuss evolutionary theory with you when you demonstrate that you understand what the theory of evolution is actually about. Hint...it's not about hurricanes.

[jennyp]

On the other hand, as you indicated, the atheist/evolutionist has no construct to hold onto morality at any time. Thus in discussing with my daughter whether she could marry an evolutionist, I said that even after marriage, he could justify leaving her at any time for a prettier or healthier woman; her holding on to him would be dependent on her functionality and desirability at any given time.

You know, a gravitarian could justify leaving her for a shorter woman.

[Dimensio]

Logically, the evolutionist/theist can still jettison their theism for the underline evolutionary justification at any time.

What is this justification? Be specific.

On the other hand, as you indicated, the atheist/evolutionist has no construct to hold onto morality at any time. Thus in discussing with my daughter whether she could marry an evolutionist, I said that even after marriage, he could justify leaving her at any time for a prettier or healthier woman; her holding on to him would be dependent on her functionality and desirability at any given time.

What is to stop a non-evolutionist from doing this? Be specific.

The logical implications of evolution on both science and morality are evident when you look at the mechanisms chosen. In this case, the mechanisms are death.

Not only are you arguing from a bogus strawman, you are attempting to appeal to consequence. Nothing that you have presented is an argument against the theory of evolution. Not liking the implications -- which, I might add, you've gotten wrong -- of a theory has no bearing on the validity of the theory. It is clear that you lack a logical and rational argument, so you lie about what evolution states, what it implies ("death" is not a driving factor in evolution) and pretend that you've made some profound statement. You haven't, you've just exposed that you're a shameless liar.

[Gumlegs]

Noam Chomsky is the Bulwer-Lytton of socioploitical barflies

The dark and stormy knight we've heard so much about?

[King Prout]

put your drinks down first

[Right Wing Professor]

Do you KNOW how incredibly infuriating and insulting this is?

Oh, give the guy a break. He's between a rock and a hard place. If his daughter marries an evolutionist, he'll leave her for someone with a higher ovum count; and if she marries a creationist, the kids will drool, have too many digits, and have to spend their entire twenty five years of homeschooling learning to say 'Want fries with that'?

Fortunately, there's a third alternative, one who's faithful, intelligent, and salivates only at mealtimes. And devilishly handsome, of course!

Note to the humorless: it's that thing you don't understand again!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Random natural acts are always destructive and the opposite of evolution."

Since Natural Selection is the opposite of random, your point is moot.

[JasonSC]

Curiously, statistics appear to indicate that Christians, whether evangelical, born-again, or unmodified, all have higher divorce rates than atheists.

Very interesting. A while back, a FReeper posted a link showing some stats that born-again Christians even have a higher abortion rate than heathens.

[Dimensio]

Proponents of the TOE do say it.

Some Christians say that the Bible states that blacks are inferior to whites. Does this mean that the Bible really says any such thing?

[adam_az]

"2200BC = 4200 years ago. "

Correct, I mistyped while eating spaghetti which flew out of my mouth to form a pattern in a monster like configuration while reading your post.

So you think that before 4200 years ago, no humans lived anywhere but Babel? That all human differentiation happened since then?

[Right Wing Professor]

Thanks for the warning. It was necessary.

[MineralMan]

"put your drinks down first"

My word! That reminded me to check the clock. The hour for work is over. The hour for imbibing the fruit of the vine has arrived. I'll pick up where I left off tomorrow, most likely on a new thread. I'm sure there will be several, given the current Pennsylvania nonsense.

I hope everyone has a pleasant evening!

[js1138]

Intelligent people have fewer potential mates to choose from and more to lose when they find one. JMHO

[Doctor Stochastic]

I would guess that the poster meant all people supporting evolution. Note that none of the ID nor Creationist supporters will criticize posts like this.

[King Prout]

summat laike thet, ayyuh.

[wallcrawlr]

oh yeah, i got a pile of rocks (and a sling) ready to go....cant wait.

[King Prout]

gettin' on beer-thirty here, too.

have a good one.

[King Prout]

I do try to be helpful, when I can ;)